Catholic threat on gay rights law

OK I’ve put this in Apologetics for a reason. First we need to all be informed about the topic so here is some news from today-

The head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales has said adoption agencies will close if they cannot opt out of new gay rights laws.

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor has written to Cabinet ministers saying church teaching prevented its agencies placing children with homosexuals.
Forcing people to act against their consciences would mean discrimination on the grounds of belief, he added. No 10 said Tony Blair had not decided whether to exempt Catholic agencies.

Full Story…

Now, on the back of a radio news report today, I heard a young (obviously gay) lady explaining that if we replaced the word “gay” with the word “black” or “Homosexual” the this kind of descrimination (being demonstrated by our Catholic Church) would not be allowed.

As tends to be the case, teh Cardinal is misrepresented, or at least no mention has been made of this section of his communication to the Prime Minister:

The Catholic Church utterly condemns all forms of unjust discrimination, violence, harassment or abuse directed against people who are homosexual. Indeed the Church teaches that they must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. We, therefore, recognise many elements of recent legislation – including much in the Northern Ireland Regulations – that takes steps to ensure that no such discrimination takes place.
You can read the whole letter here.

I think my question really revolves around this ladies remarks. Is Catholic policy discriminatory? I mean it seems reasonable to say it is. We could say that people who are not suitable to adopt should not be allowed, but when the state refuses to accept descrimination against homosexuals what right have we got to retain descrimination? How does the Catholic position differ from that of the slave traders? From people who think that people of different colour have less rights? In short, how can we look at this problem in a sensitive, Christ- like way?

Yes. Terribly so. Just as not allowing pedophiles to work in public schools is terribly discriminatory.


We may feel this way as Christians- but it seems evident that society at large does not feel this way. It think it is fair to say we should be able to prepare a better argument than this shouldn’t we noma my friend? :slight_smile:

The reason I posted this thread in apologetics is that I wanted to discuss how we argue that the Catholic position is not discriminatory.

Agreed. I will think on it.

I believe it will draw on why most places will not allow alcoholics to work at bars and liquor stores. And why most Private Christian Schools will not hire atheists to teach the bible classes.

And also that morality should not be legislated where all adults are consenting, and where only adults are involved. Male-only sodomy in privacy should be legal. Legal also should be the rights of business owners not to hire those who engage in male-only sodomy.

How can you tell??? :confused:

Also, why is this not discriminatory? Surely what a person does in private is not the business of his employer? What if an employer had an aversion to heterosexuals, or Christians? Should that also be legal?

I thought discrimination was not giving someone equal rights. Is adoption now a right? I would think it would be a responsibility. I think if you are put in the position of giving a child the best possible home, and according to your faith a homosexual couple can not fulfill that responsibility, then wouldn’t the state be discriminating against your faith to force you to place a child with that couple.

Tongue in cheek answer is, why don’t homosexuals adopt babies from other gays who have conceived out of wedlock?

It seems to me that Catholics are being discriminated against by forcing them to go against their consciences.

The obvious answer is… hey? what’s that in on your ceiling? runs away

Also, why is this not discriminatory? Surely what a person does in private is not the business of his employer? What if an employer had an aversion to heterosexuals, or Christians? Should that also be legal?

The case for this is a little simpler to answer. It would depend on the job. Is the job at a Marxist private grade school (one exists in New York)? I probably wouldn’t hire a Christian. A private Catholic orphanage? I would not hire anyone who is not a practical Catholic. As I believe, any private employer should have the right to restrict people based on their consensual actions (Catholics can’t work in certain protestant Christian book stores; I found this out when I was Catholic). Public employment is more complex, and probably should not restrict gays from work in most circumstances.

Argument to an essentially secular authority against the universal adoptive rights of gays.

Attempt #1:

We are to consider those who adopt, within the secular definition, as employers. The new parent-figures of the child adopted are volunteer employees, their client being the child. This is a permenant job without salary, vacation, or any sort of off-time (save for sleep, but you must be on-call).

Those who hire for this job (the adoption agency, public or private) must discern who is the most able employee. The ability would be toward the job. As the job should not be terminated until after ten to eighteen years in most cases, early retirement will not be an option. Those who may become enable to perform the duties of their employment would not be qualified. Also, a certain amount of experience would be necessary, and so persons under a certain age would not be allowed. We discriminate on the basis of age. We also discriminate on the basis of intelligence, maturity, and physical ability (those who are seriously terminally ill need not apply).

The person who is volunteering must be in a stable financial situation, and should dress and act appropriately at all times. This position also includes full-time education, with a curriculum. Since the employees in this situation will have no private life, and no vacation time, any part of their lives that does not meet the standard of appropriateness in dress and in lifestyle, to the discretion of the company, would be disqualified. Moral judgments would be necessary for these standards.

Because of the lack of privacy, discrimination toward lifestyle would be absolutely necessary. I could not think of a responsible adoption agency that would not discriminate in such a way.

Not all may exclude gays. Not all would exclude the KKK either, in all probability. Certain judgments would have to be made by the organization that is employing these volunteers, especially protecting themselves from legal ramifications, and trying to assist in the satisfaction of the client.

First of all, that lady is comparing apples to oranges. Race and sexual orientation (or sex in general) cannot be compared. It would be as if I were to say that not allowing men to use a women’s bathroom was descrimatory because if you were to substitute the word “men” with “blacks” there would be an outcry.

Let us state the Catholic position positively:

All children are entitled to both a mother and a father.

When we talk about adoption, the unfortunate reality is that we often overlook the rights of the adopted and concentrate only on the rights of the adopters. The truth is, though, that the rights of the adopted far outweight the rights of those who wish to adopt them. Homosexual environments have been proven to be harmful to children for several reasons, including these:

a) the lack of either a mother or father, which has been shown to lead to criminal behavior and the lack of ability to identify with one’s gender

b) the fact that homosexuals are much more promiscuous than heterosexuals

We, as Catholics, have always believed homosexual actions/relationships to be disordered and evil. We know this to be an infallible truth. Therefore, if a Catholic adoption agency were forced to let homosexual couples adopt children, the Catholics running the agency would be forced to knowingly expose the children to evil. Also, this would cause great scandal because it would make it seem like the Church was approving homosexuality and homosexual marriages.

In other words, Catholics would be forced to participate in what they believe to be evil and scandalous.

When we consider that there are other agencies willing to cater to homosexuals, it becomes apparent that the descrimination is not against homosexuals but against those who believe in something called morality.

Thought this was good! :slight_smile:

The Dioscese of Boston stopped doing adoptions because Mass. wanted them to permit same sex couple adoptions.

Unfit is unfit, no matter how popular it may seem.

If gay people are not allowed to adopt, it seems only fair that all natural children be taken out of their custody as well. All children should be protected. Isn’t that the goal of this exercise?

Oh my! Well, I don’t know if this is kind of off topic, but I was absolutely flabergasted when I looked at the Sacramento Bee Sunday Newspaper, on the front page under the heading of A New Family Portrait, was the picture of two men and their adopted children!!! I find it greatly disturbing and dissappointing.

Not looking good for the Church this morning!

I fear for the world during these times…I wonder if gay marriage is allowed, will the Church be forced to wed such couples? And I also worry because a friend of mine and I were discussing priests that supported gay rights…Well, I had not come across such until a few days ago, when I was looking at different parishes in the area. One of the parishes had a list of reasons as to why persons attended and some of the reasons were: it is not the “conservative” Catholic Church, they do not discriminate regardless of sexual orientation and so on…I don’t know, these things just worry me…

I bet no one here would be forcing a similar thing on any Islamic institution!

Heartrending injustice.

I must say that I am pleased that the Anglican Church is standing her ground.

That is because there would be seen discrimination because of a discrimination law. The employment of an institution would be hampered by discrimination against a creed that requires they discriminate.

Though this is also true with the Catholic institutions, the comparison is less obvious, and often making it brings name-calling.


How does the Catholic position differ from that of the slave traders?

The Catholic Church did not approve of slave trading because it is unnatural and sinful.

The Catholic Church does not approve of homosexuality because it is unnatural and sinful.

The Catholic Church does not approve of abortion because it is unnatural and sinful.

The Catholic Church (along with other conservative religious bodies) has provided the only true and reliable moral compass for a world lost in relativism and sunk in sin.

“The Catholic Church is the only thing which saves a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age”–G. K. Chesterton

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit